Clinical transplantation · 2013
Immunosuppression after renal allograft failure: a survey of US practices.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bayliss George P, Gohh Reginald Y, Morrissey Paul E, Rodrigue James R, Mandelbrot Didier A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Little data exist to guide the management of immunosuppression after renal graft failure. More aggressive tapering of immunosuppressive medications may reduce the risk of infection, but may increase the risk of rejection and sensitization.
METHODS: To document current practices in the US, we emailed a questionnaire to medical and surgical transplant directors as identified by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS).
RESULTS: Emails were sent to 221 programs, of which 93 (42.1%) responded. About 24.7% of respondents reported adjusting immunosuppression according to a standard protocol; 75.3% said practices are physician dependent. The majority said that 80 or 100% of patients are off all immunosuppression one yr after returning to dialysis. The most important factors cited in deciding whether to stop immunosuppression were plans to retransplant (40.2%) and signs and symptoms of rejection (37.0%). When asked which immunosuppressive medications are continued indefinitely, 21.5% responded prednisone and 71.0% said none. Respondents most commonly said they performed graft nephrectomy only if there are signs and symptoms of rejection (47.3%) or if signs and symptoms of rejection fail to respond to steroids (34.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of good data to guide decisions on immunosuppression in patients with failed allografts, practices in the US vary greatly. More data are needed to determine which policies lead to the best outcomes.
METHODS: To document current practices in the US, we emailed a questionnaire to medical and surgical transplant directors as identified by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS).
RESULTS: Emails were sent to 221 programs, of which 93 (42.1%) responded. About 24.7% of respondents reported adjusting immunosuppression according to a standard protocol; 75.3% said practices are physician dependent. The majority said that 80 or 100% of patients are off all immunosuppression one yr after returning to dialysis. The most important factors cited in deciding whether to stop immunosuppression were plans to retransplant (40.2%) and signs and symptoms of rejection (37.0%). When asked which immunosuppressive medications are continued indefinitely, 21.5% responded prednisone and 71.0% said none. Respondents most commonly said they performed graft nephrectomy only if there are signs and symptoms of rejection (47.3%) or if signs and symptoms of rejection fail to respond to steroids (34.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of good data to guide decisions on immunosuppression in patients with failed allografts, practices in the US vary greatly. More data are needed to determine which policies lead to the best outcomes.